An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Category Archives: European Banks International Monetary Fund
China loses control of economy and production is falling.
Investment in China has been a bad bet for many months.
One big issue could be some of the university investments and pension funds along with State pension funds. If you think 2008 was bad, things can could get worse. Let take a look at California.
Two of California’s massive public pension funds lost more than $5 billion on investments in coal, oil and natural gas in just 12 months.
According to a report released by environmental group 350.org, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) lost $3 billion and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) lost $2.1 billion from their holdings in the top 200 fossil fuel companies between June 2014 and June of this year.
Combined, the two funds lost a total of $840 million from their stock investments in coal companies alone — one-fourth of the value of their coal holdings.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported earlier this month that CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the US, lost $40 million on just one oil company, Pioneer Natural Resources Co.
Together, CalPERS and CalSTRS represent a total of nearly 2.6 million Californians and their families.
“This is a material loss of money, which directly impacts the strength of the pension fund,” Matthew Patsky, CEO of Trillium Asset Management, which performed the analysis on behalf of 350, said in a statement. “Fossil fuel stocks are volatile investments. Investors and fiduciaries should take this moment to reassess their financial involvement in carbon pollution, climate disruption and the financial risk fossil fuels plays in their portfolio.”
The report comes as California legislators are set to consider a bill that would force CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from fossil fuels, at least in part.
State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León introduced S.B. 185 earlier this year as part of a larger package of legislation intended to address global warming and its impacts. S.B 185 would require both CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from companies that earn at least half of their revenue from coal mining operations.
The state senate approved the entire package of climate legislation in the Spring. S.B 185 is expected to be considered by California’s lower legislative chamber, the State Assembly, later this month.
“This bill is the right thing to do from both the economic and social perspective,” State Sen. Jerry Hill, who co-authored S.B 185, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “We should be moving to sources of energy, and investments, that are socially responsible and will take us from the 20th century and into the 21st.”
CalPERS has holdings in about 30 coal companies with a combined market value of $167 million that would be impacted by SB185, per the SF Chronicle. CalSTRS holds about $40 million in coal investments that would be affected.
“On behalf of teachers across the state, I have been urging CalSTRS to take our investments out of fossil fuels,” Jane Vosburg, a CalSTRS member and organizer with Fossil Fuel California, said in a statement. “Financial experts have long warned about the high risk of fossil fuel investments. Teachers’ pension funds should not be invested in an industry that threatens human civilization.”
If S.B. 185 passes, the California pension funds will become the latest institutions to join the growing divestment movement, a worldwide effort to compel pension funds, religious institutions, universities and other investors to divest their financial holdings in fossil fuel companies.
“It’s important to see that fossil fuels in general, and coal in particular, are risky bets for the pension system,” said Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst with 350.org. “When folks are saying divestment is risky, we can say, ‘Well, not divesting is risky.’
New York (AFP) – US crude oil prices continued to fall Monday, diving below $40 a barrel to their lowest level since 2009, amid a global market selloff sparked by fears of China’s slowdown.
US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) for October delivery tumbled by $1.39 to $39.06 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange around 1305 GMT. On Friday the contract had slipped below $40 in intraday trade.
As Iran now is increasing drilling output, oil will go lower in the price per barrel. Sounds good but not so much.
”Death to England” read the message in orange marker pen, daubed inside the elegant ambassador’s residence of the British embassy in Tehran. The motif was still visible on Sunday when Philip Hammond officially reopened the mission, four years after a mob vandalised its spacious premises.
The Foreign Secretary says Iran and Britain will not always agree but there should be no limit to what the countries can achieve together ….. He said WHAT?
In part from the Guardian: Here we go again: another British foreign secretary in Iran with the hopeful expectation of forging closer ties with the ayatollahs. Ever since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979, the holy grail of British foreign policy has been to reach out to the moderates in Tehran, thereby isolating the hardliners.
Back in the Eighties when, thanks to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, British hostages such as Terry Waite and John McCarthy spent five or so years chained to radiators in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, Sir Geoffrey Howe, our then foreign secretary, frequently told me that the hostage crisis could be resolved if only we could establish a working relationship with the moderates in Tehran. But for all our entreaties, the hardliners won the day, and the hostages were eventually released when the ayatollahs deemed them to be surplus to their agenda.
More recently, in 2003, New Labour’s Jack Straw believed he had identified a similar moderate tendency in Iran’s political establishment, during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami. This, of course, was in the aftermath of the Iraq War, when the ayatollahs feared – not unduly – that they might be next on President George W Bush’s hit list.
Lord Lamont, the former Tory Chancellor, is one of the more vocal members among an influential group of establishment figures in London who advocate embracing the ayatollahs, a view that is also being enthusiastically taken up by those in the business community who hope to benefit from the estimated £100 billion Iran will soon receive when its overseas assets are released.
But in this unseemly scramble, the Government now appears content to turn a blind eye to some of Iran’s more egregious activities. For example, after an Iranian mob stormed and then trashed the embassy compound in 2011, the Government insisted there would be no restoration of relations until the Iranians paid full compensation for the damage caused. But as this newspaper reports today, Britain has paid the full cost of the repairs.
Similarly, Whitehall would like to draw a discreet veil over similarly vexing issues, such as whether the Home Office will be able to act against Iranian nationals who overstay their welcome in the UK. Without the proper safeguards, we could end up with Hizbollah and Revolutionary Guard terrorists setting up operations in the UK, just like al-Qaeda and Isil have sought to do.
That covers the costs for 120,000 students in 175 schools taught by 5,500 teachers throughout Jordan for four months.
This means that the annual budget for educating Jordan’s students of Palestinian origin is $70 million.
Nearly every one of these students is already a Jordanian citizen.
Jordan says that it cannot afford to educate these students, relying instead on UNRWA, even though this means that the kingdom has two separate school systems with two separate bureaucracies, two separate transportation systems, two separate administrations.
So why not just redirect the money earmarked for UNRWA to Jordanian schools directly?
Western nations should be happy to get rid of Jordanian apartheid where Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens. They can and should be mainstreamed into Jordanian society, something that should have happened decades ago.
By no definition can they be considered “refugees.” So why continue to treat them that way?
A five or seven year program to fund Jordan’s existing education (and medical) system to accommodate Palestinians, and phase out the current apartheid system for to million so-called “refugees,” is something that everyone who cares about equal rights should support.
And Canada could be in the forefront to kickstart such a program.
In 2007, Canada gave $32 million to UNRWA. As it soon realized that UNRWA is not aligned with Canadian values, the nation dropped its support to zero, redirecting some of it to various specific PA projects.
UNRWA is at a crossroads. It cannot continue to fund fund its ever-growing “refugee” population without a plan to reduce the number of people on its rolls, as it was originally intended to do. There is no rational reason for Jordanian citizens who happen to have Palestinian ancestry to be considered “refugees.” The only reason UNRWA exists in Jordan is as a crutch to help Jordan’s budget (besides the political reason of inflating the number of “refugees” to pressure Israel forever.)
It is past time to force UNRWA to change its working definition of “refugee” to be more aligned with that of the UNHCR and to phase out aid to the fake “refugees’ who are citizens of Jordan. This budget crisis gives the world a chance to do exactly that, by using limited aid funds smartly and at the same time to eliminate two million “refugees.”
The same can be done in the West Bank and Gaza, two other places that Palestinians cannot possibly be called “refugees” by any sane definition. Since most countries recognize “Palestine” as a state, pay the PA to take responsibility for their own people – with a deadline.
The money saved can help the stateless Arabs of Palestinian origin wasting away in Lebanon and Syria, where UNRWA aid is most urgently needed until a more permanent solution is found.
Enlightened nations like Canada and Australia and the U.S. would also be happy to replace the current UNRWA dinosaur with a real plan to reduce its budget while directing funds at those who need them most.
Now is the chance to accomplish something useful before UNRWA implodes and its current welfare recipients are left with nothing but anger.
Deeper Dive on UNRWA
The U.S. Senate received lately a precedent decision regarding refugees UNRWA and the Palestinian Arabs. To understand the change one should have mentioned that UNRWA’s beginning was appropriate. A UN relief organization for the British Mandate Arabs, most of whom fled and some were deported, due to Arab aggression seeking to destroy Israel just as it has been established. But the treatment of refugees changed direction, and instead of a caretaker, UNRWA became a reproduction, exacerbation and perpetuation plant of tremendous size.
There are two UN bodies dealing with refugees. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that handles all the world’s refugees, and UNRWA, which deals only with the ones that became the Palestinian Arabs (at first they did not know that they are so. They were Arabs. Separate identity developed later). The Commissioner dealt with fifty million people. They won the first aid, and they are no longer refugees. UNRWA, however, started the way with 711 thousand, and miraculously has made them into more than five million. The Commissioner rehabilitates refugees. UNRWA fosters, multiplies and perpetuates the refugee problem.
This paradox is known to anyone who has eyes in his head. It comes from many reasons. One is the strange definition of UNRWA refugee: “They were in the territory of Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and lost both their homes and livelihoods as a result of the Arab – Israeli conflict.” But over time their descendants also came into the frame, and strangely enough, and contrary to the definition, also those who were not needed in the first place, and even those who became wealthy later – were still considered a refugee. Thus the number of “refugees” is rising over the years in somewhat vertiginous and strange manner.
Against this background, in recent months MK Dr. Einat Wilf worked, in cooperation with AIPAC, to influence the primary source of funding for UNRWA – the United States. The result is the “Kirk Amendment,” named after the Republican senator Mark Kirk. His amendment would require the State Department to report what is the actual number of original refugees, answering to the definition that appears in the original mandate of UNRWA. It is estimated at only 30,000.
There is something sophisticated in Kirk’s amendment, because the Amendment does not demand a cut in aid or a change in the criteria. These are reporting requirements only – A report on the number of original refugees, and a report on the number of descendants. But reports on the amendment made it clear that this entails a first step towards a more fundamental change. As following the report the question will rise – why should taxpayers pay for those who are not really refugees?
In fact, these questions have been popping up. U.S. Undersecretary of State, Thomas Nides, sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is urging them to vote against the amendment. He claims that the issue is particularly sensitive, the U.S. should not intervene in determining the number of refugees, and that this matter should be resolved in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Embassy of Jordan in Washington has put pressure against the adoption of the amendment, and Nides notes in his letter that the amendment might create “a negative reaction, especially in Jordan.”
Nides’s request was denied. The amendment passed. Meanwhile there are no strong blast waves. And it’s a shame. It’s time to blow up the bloated balloon, of ever-swelling Palestinian refugees numbers. On the day the Palestinian “refugees” will be treated similarly to the tens of millions of other refugees in the world – will be the day when the situation will begin to improve, along with prospects for peace. Because the “refugee problem,” as the Arab side stated over and over again, “is perpetuated in order to achieve the solution of the elimination of Israel.”
The treatment so far of the problem of refugees has become the biggest obstacle to peace. It’s time for a change. The U.S. Senate took a preliminary step, limited and uncertain – A step in the right direction. Hopefully, the next steps will follow.
International norms
And more points to the attention of the Congress: By official count of UNRWA, the number of refugees in Lebanon reached early last year to 425,000. However, according to a study published by the American University of Beirut, which UNRWA itself has helped finance; it is only 260 to 280 thousands. They are immigrating and fleeing from Arab countries, because they suffer from severe apartheid in the Arab world (also according to the report). So there is no connection between the number registered and funded and the number of those still there. So the United States, which is the primary contributor, should pose the obvious question: where exactly does the money go, when there is a 57% exaggeration in the number of refugees?
And yet another fraud: under the UN Refugee Convention, Article 1 (A) 2, those who received citizenship in any country, cannot be considered a refugee. And here, according to UNRWA’s official publication, Jordan has more than two million refugees, the vast majority of whom have Jordanian nationality. So you can decrease two millions in Jordan, and another 150 thousand in Lebanon and Syria is likely in a similar situation. There the number is also an inflated. Recommendation to this effect is also found in the report filed by James Lindsey. For seven years, Lindsey served as a senior UNRWA official. After his retirement, he was a research fellow in the “Washington Institute”, where he published a comprehensive study with deep reform proposals.
UNRWA – has one employee per 172 patients. In UNHCR – one employee per 4,424 patients.
UNRWA per capita budget is also more than double than the UNHCR. Considering that many of those listed are already citizens of other countries, or that the lists are inflated, as in Lebanon, then it means that a Palestinian Arab “refugee” costs the international community, particularly the U.S., far more than any other refugee in the world.
The chain of absurdities and frauds must be stopped. Uniformity in definitions and norms is necessary. The anti-Israel side argues again and again that Israel should abide by international norms – Great and just demand. This is exactly what should happen, even with the refugees – the same definitions for “who is a refugee”, and the same treatment of rescuing the really needing rather than perpetuating them as “refugees.” This will be the greatest contribution of the international community to promote peace. Senator Kirk began. Hopefully he will continue.
Other countries are taking a hardline stance against immigration and those foreigners seeking refuge. Failed nations are to blame when advanced countries do little to control crime, terror insurgencies and financial tailspins. The United States is experiencing historic influxes of people seeking asylum, refuge and otherwise aliens from worldwide locations. However, the United States is not alone when it comes to failed international relations and policy but Europe is as well, where a larger debate on the matter is required.
BBC: The number of migrants at the EU’s borders reached a record high of 107,500 in July, officials say, as a sharp surge in expected asylum requests was reported in Germany.
Germany has seen a wave of migration from Syria and the Balkans, and now says it could receive as many as 750,000 asylum seekers this year.
The EU has been struggling to cope with migrant arrivals in recent months.
France and the UK say they will sign a deal to tackle the crisis in Calais.
Over the summer, thousands of migrants have sought to get to the UK through the Channel Tunnel from makeshift camps around the northern French city.
France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve and his British counterpart, Theresa May, say they will sign a deal there on Thursday to strengthen their countries’ co-operation on security, the fight against criminal smugglers, human traffickers, and clandestine immigration.
In early August, the UK pledged to add €10m (£7m) to a fund established in September 2014 to secure the port of Calais, and initially endowed with €15m over three years.
‘Third consecutive record’
EU border agency Frontex said the number of migrants surpassed the 100,000 mark in a single month for the first time since it had begun keeping records in 2008.
The Warsaw-based agency said in a statement that the figure of 107,500 migrants for July was the “third consecutive monthly record, jumping well past the previous high of more than 70,000 reached in June”.
The German government had earlier forecast that 450,000 asylum seekers could arrive in 2015, but is now set to increase that to 650,000 or higher.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said more countries in Europe should share the burden.
“It is unsustainable in the long run that only two EU countries, Germany and Sweden, take in the majority of refugees,” he told German daily Die Welt.
Hungary’s southern border marks the edge of the EU’s Schengen zone of passport-free travel and is thus a target for migrants seeking to enter the EU.
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Walking into Mexico at the nation’s busiest border crossing with the United States is no longer an uninterrupted stroll for foreigners.
Starting late Wednesday, pedestrians going to Tijuana from San Diego at the San Ysidro crossing must choose between a line for Mexicans who get waved through, and a line for foreigners who must show a passport, fill out a form and — if staying more than a week — pay 322 pesos, or roughly $20, for a six-month permit.
About a dozen foreigners stood in line Wednesday night, directed by English-speaking agents to six inspection booths where they got passports stamped. It took about 10 minutes from start to finish.
Travelers have long followed similar protocol at Mexican airports, but the new border procedure marks a big change at land crossings that weren’t designed to question everyone. Pedestrians and motorists have generally entered Mexico unencumbered along the 1,954-mile border with the United States.
“This is about putting our house in order,” said Rodulfo Figueroa, Mexico’s top immigration official in Baja California state, which includes Tijuana.
The changes, which have been in the works for years, come as Donald Trump has surged to the top of the Republican field in the U.S. presidential race. He has insisted that Mexico sends criminals to the U.S. and pledges to build a border wall at Mexico’s expense.
For Mexico, it is a step toward closing an escape route for American criminals who disappear in Mexico. Border inspectors will tap into international criminal databases. Motorists will see no change, and if lines get too long, officials will also wave pedestrians through.
More than 120 Americans expelled from Mexico this year while living in Baja California had arrest warrants in the U.S., according to Figueroa, delegate of the National Migration Institute. Some ordered to leave last year were on the FBI’s most-wanted list.
But authorities say benefits extend beyond stopping unwanted visitors. A recent hurricane stranded twice as many Americans in Cabo San Lucas than U.S. authorities thought were there, Figueroa said, and registering as a foreigner would have made it easier to identify those who needed help.
Figueroa said Mexico can initially process about 1,000 foreigners daily, up from about 50 currently.
“If the line becomes clogged up, we will just let everybody through,” Figueroa said. “If we can’t check everybody, we won’t.”
Figueroa said San Ysidro is believed to be the first U.S. land crossing to have a separate line for foreigners to show passports and that it will serve as a model for others as they are upgraded. Aurora Vega, a spokeswoman for the National Migration Institute, referred questions to other departments. Officials at the Foreign Relations Department and Mexican Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment.
About 25,000 pedestrians (and 50,000 motorists) cross daily at San Ysidro to work, shop and play but it is unclear how many are foreigners in Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says about one-third entering San Diego are U.S. citizens, one-third are U.S. legal residents and the rest are from other countries, largely Mexico. An unknown number have dual citizenship or residency in the U.S. and Mexico.
Both countries have long wrestled with logistical hurdles of stopping people going to Mexico by land. The U.S. occasionally stops motorists and pedestrians as they leave — mainly to check for guns and cash — but it doesn’t have a system to record exits like at airports, seen by many as a significant shortcoming in border security.
Previous efforts to question more foreigners entering Mexico met resistance in Tijuana, whose economy partly relies on Americans who visit restaurants, beaches, doctors and dentists. Lines to enter the United States at San Ysidro have exceeded four hours.
Roberto Arteaga, who has made tacos, shined shoes and sold tickets for private bus and van rides in Southern California during 28 years as a street vendor near the border crossing, says requiring passports and imposing a fee for longer stays sends the wrong message.
“We should be welcoming,” he said during a lull in business Tuesday. “This will hurt Tijuana’s economy.”
Other crossers said the move was overdue.
“Anything to keep the country safer is much better for everyone,” Cynthia Diaz of Oceanside, near San Diego, said as she stood in line to return to the U.S with her niece, who visited Tijuana for a root canal. “It’s safer for us on the other side too.”
It must have been some waivers that government officials signed that allowed renewed trade with Iran despite no trade under the Bush Administration and in most cases going back to the Carter administration.
The exception for the waiver appears to be under the guise of ‘humanitarian reasons’. So exactly how would Marlboro/Philip Morris or Coca Cola exactly be allowed for humanitarian reasons? I don’t know either but read on….the story gets worse.
The Standard Chartered affair has laid bare a transatlantic rift between the U.S. and Europe over Iran sanctions.
U.K.-listed bank Standard Chartered agreed Tuesday to pay a $340 million sum to a New York regulator to settle allegations it broke U.S. money-laundering laws in handling Iranian customers’ transactions.
The allegations, which were made public by the New York state Department of Financial Services last week, led some U.K. political figures to accuse the regulator of seeking to undermine London as a financial center.
Now there are more grumblings this side of the pond as European companies realize they suffer more from recent Iran restrictions than their U.S. counterparts–and that such advantage may stem in part from better corporate access to decision-makers in Washington than in Brussels.
Oral-B mouth wash, made by Procter & Gamble Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio, is still on display at local corner shops in Iran—the company confirms it still sells to Iran legally. Coca-Cola Co.’s Coke soft drink is sold in cafes and supermarkets. The Atlanta-based multinational says its syrup is still being legally exported to Iran and bottled by Khoshgovar Co., whose commercial manager Valid Nejati confirmed the information. “There have been no issues” with receiving payments, a Coca-Cola spokesman said.
To be sure, the penalties enforced against European banks for breaching sanctions on Iran were not focused on trade in foodstuffs, as a U.S Treasury official points out.
But European companies say their banks are increasingly refusing to handle letters of credit because they fear they could run into trouble in the U.S. because financial sanctions there have become so complex.
By contrast, the growth of U.S. sales to Iran largely stems from a decision in October to replace the previous cumbersome approval process with a blanket license for non-sanctioned food items, says Michael Burton, a Washington-based sanctions lawyer at Arent Fox.
While some European cereal traders say they can’t find banks to issue letters of credit for Iran, the U.S. this year restarted wheat exports to the Islamic Republic after a two-year gap.
As of last year, the vast majority of U.S. goods were medical preparations or equipment—31%– , pulpwood and woodpulp—25% and agricultural goods and food–17%
But U.S. permits even extend to goods such as cigarettes, though they are not covered by the blanket license and are subject to more stringent control than foodstuffs.
In April, Philip Morris International Inc. obtained a specific licence from the U.S. Treasury, “to sell cigarettes to customers for import into Iran,” a spokesman for the company said, although it has yet to make use of the authorization.
But expect no miracle to explain why Iranians may be allowed to buy Marlboros but not drive the new Peugeot in the future. To put it simply: when it comes to pleading its case with decision-makers, Corporate America does it better.
Mr. Burton also said U.S. companies benefit from well established channels in Washington to plead for sanctions exemptions, while their European peers, “don’t have the same mechanism to lobby the EU bureaucracy.”
For instance, Washington-based lobby group USA*Engage has successfully campaigned for the extension of a humanitarian exemption for food, agricultural products and medical goods from Iran sanctions.
Richard Sawaya, the director of USA* Engage, said “we have been in perpetual conversation with lawmakers and the Treasury,” on keeping the exemption. The primary aim of USA*Engage is humanitarian, but it can also benefit U.S. companies, Mr. Sawaya said, adding its focusis not limited to Iran.
USA*Engage is an offshoot of the Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council, whose board includes Procter & Gamble. More reading here.
*** Don’t go away yet…now due to the Iran deal concluded, the United States is on the hook to help Iran sell its oil.
Washington, 7 August (Argus) — The US administration is taking steps to ensure that Tehran’s oil customers can continue to purchase Iranian crude during an interim period before a nuclear agreement can be fully implemented and sanctions lifted.
The US Treasury and State departments late today issued guidance for how they will handle Iranian oil and petrochemical exports in the wake of a 14 July agreement the US and its P5 + 1 negotiating partners reached with Tehran. That accord swaps sanctions relief for nuclear concessions.
During the nuclear negotiations, Iran’s oil exports have been limited to 1mn-1.1mn b/d, down from 2.5mn b/d before the sanctions were imposed in 2012. Six countries — China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey — buy oil from Iran.
Under US law, President Barack Obama is authorized to impose sanctions on banks in countries that refuse to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil significantly. The US is pledging not to impose sanctions on financial institutions in those countries. And the US will not target non-US companies that help facilitate those purchases.
Obama on 5 August questioned the feasibility of trying to cut Beijing off from the US financial system, since the Chinese “happen to be major purchasers of our debt.” He warned such an effort “could trigger severe disruptions in our economy” and raise questions about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.
The US also will allow 14 companies to export petrochemicals from Iran. US administration officials estimate it will take six to nine months before compliance with the nuclear provisions can be assured and sanctions can be lifted.
The Republican-controlled Congress is scheduled to vote by 17 September on a resolution of disapproval to demonstrate their unhappiness with the nuclear agreement. That measure is likely to pass, prompting President Barack Obama to veto the resolution. Obama will need 34 Democrats in the Senate or a third of the House of Representatives to sustain his veto.
But Obama is suffering Democratic defections. Yesterday, New York senator Charles Schumer, who in 2017 is expected to become the Democrats’ new leader in the Senate, said yesterday he will oppose the deal.
Iran produced 2.88mn b/d in July, up from 2.85mn b/d in June, making it Opec’s third largest oil producer. Iranian officials have said repeatedly their oil sector needs $150bn-$200bn in new investment. US officials estimate
